On 01-01-17 Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On 17-Jan-2001 Peter Novodvorsky wrote:
> > ++ 17/01/01 18:09 +0100 - Christian Kurz:
> >>
> >> No, once again. I think that sponsored packages should be maintainer by
> >> a sponsor team and orphaned packages by an orphaned team ;). This way
> >> the QA Team can focus again on it's QA task. If you have any more
> >> question, the let discuss them via the other way. ;)
> >
> > I agree with you and I ask developers to pay attention to this idea.
> or better yet, remove packages from the distribution that lack
> maintainers. Place them in a dir called 'limbo' or something. If the
> package is actually useful, someone will pick it up. Otherwise old
> cruft can be removed.
But what about packages like silo which didn't need really a fix and
where no one thaugh about adopting it until I mentioned it's removal
here? I think one or two people taking care of some important packages,
would still be good. But I have to say that your idea is also very good.
Maybe we can combine them to have a dir called limbo or something with
packages that lack a maintainer. And one or two people take care of this
packages, remove old cruft after some time an take care of some
important packages that are maybe classified as having no maintainer.
What do you think?
Ciao
Christian
--
Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Team Member
1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853
Attachment:
pgpRowSLYol1y.pgp
Description: PGP signature